Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1887-10-04
Lmportant opinion
by Judge Jackson, in the
United States Court, iathe Chdmcery
Cause of Opie Us. Cast1enaap-His
Honor Holds That the Plaintiff is
Entitled to. tie Relief Sought.

yeSbeIuay3 atfa aoi'hS SuS
afternoon most of the officials left the
city for their several homes. During
the morning session of the Court, as
was announced in the Register yester-
day morning. Judge jackson deliv-
cred his opinion in the chancery
cause of Opie v. Castleman, in which
the Court held that the plaintiff was
right in his claim and that he was en-
titled, in equity and law, to the relief
sought. The case is of so unusual
and interesting a nature, that it is
worthy of detailed narration.
In 1856 Hiram l.. Opie, the father
of the plaintiff, sold to Henry Castle
man, now deceased, a tract of land
in jefferson county, then in the State
of Virginia, for the sun of Sal, 49,
&C, ten thousand dollars cash in hand,
and the remainder in deferred install
ments, evidenced ny notes bearing
date January 1st, 1856, the first for
So, 900, due January l., 1857; the
second for So, 900, bearing date JAN
uary /, 1858, and six other notes for
So, 622.27, payable respectively jan
uary 1, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1868,
and 1864, all bearing interest from
date. Shortly after the sale of the
land, Opie removed to Augusta
ty, Va, where he resided until his
death in 1862. At the time of the
sale a proper deed was made for the
land, and the deferred payments were
secured by deed of trust. When the
grantor died there remand unpaid
four of the deferred payments, for
the sum of S3,622.2S each. In No
vember, 1862, the widow of the de-
ceased Hiram L. Opie and Thomas l..
Opie qualified as personal represent
~tatives of the estate of the decedcnt.
l.. Late in the year 1862, Castfeman,
knowing there was due on the pur-
chase money of the notes which had
matured January l, 1861, and JAN
uary lst 1862, something like 5000.
with unpaid interest, got together
notes of the Confederate States and
Virginia bank notes sufficient to pay
off the notes due, and crossing the
military lines to Augusta county, he
found Mrs. Opie, n of the personal
representatives above mentioned, and
paid off and discharged the notes
then overdue, the money paid by him
at the time being greatly deprecated.
AT the time this payment was made,
Mary and John, heirs of the decedent,
were under age, and the plaintiff in
this action was away from home and
has not ratified the action of the per-
soma! representative of the estate
Subsequently Castleman paid and
discharged the notes which fell due
in January 1868 and 1864 in the de-
preciated currency, and in 1868 a re-
lease was executed by the trustee in
the deed of trust upon the request of
Mrs. Opic, the administrators of the
estate. The estate of the decedcnt
was not in debt, but the greater part
the possession of the personal repre-
sentative was invested in the bonds
of the Confederate States.
These being the facts in the case,
the question which presented itself
for the consideration of the Court
was, were the payments made on a
contract entered into before the war,
and which at the time were to be dis
charged in the lawful money of the
United States, satisfied and eXtin-
guished by the payments made to the
tiduciaries in deprecated currency?
In delivering his opinion, Judge
Jackson said:
I" 1t is to be borne in mind that the
relation of a tiduciary to the estate he
represents is very different from that
of the decedent, if living. The latter
could exercise unlimited discretion
to do as lie saw proper in accepting
as payment of Il debt due him any
currency passing for money, however
deprecated, whilst the former, acting
in 4 fiduciary capacity, would he re-
quired to exercise the sOundest dis
erection. y personal representative
must act in good faith with the estate
he has in charge. 1t is his duty to
look after the estate. preserve it from
waste and protect it from unnecessary
expenditure.
In the case before us, there is no
charge of neglect of the property, or
the usual charge of waste connected
with its administration. The heirs in
this instance, who are asserting their
rights in this action, did not ask for
a distribution of its assets two of
them being minors and the others alb
sent from home. 1t does not appear
thatthey ever consented or acquiesccd
in the action of the personal represent
tative. Moreover, the debtor was not
pressed or required to pay the money.
On the contrary, he seemed to have
put himself to unusual trouble to Sc
cure the funds with which to pay the
debts due the estate in a deprecated
currency, the greater portion of
which he had to borrow, and which
only had a purchasing power of one
third of its face vahle. This attempt
to pay off and discharge the debt was
made outside the military lines of the
United States, to satisfy a debt fully
secured upon lands within the Fed
crai lines, in 4 currency not only un-
authorized by the laws of the land in
which the contract vas made, and
where the debt was properly payable,
but the proceeds were invested in the
bonds of the Confederate States, is
sued for the avowcd purpose of wag-
ing wal against the United States.
For this reason we are inclined
to the opinion that this action of the
fi1r,iarv 10 ubollv i11anal on1 vOiA